Incidence of fires and related injuries after giving out free smoke alarms: cluster randomised controlled trial
- 2 November 2002
- Vol. 325 (7371), 995
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7371.995
Abstract
Objective: To measure the effect of giving out free smoke alarms on rates of fires and rates of fire related injury in a deprived multiethnic urban population. Design:Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Forty electoral wards in two boroughs of inner London, United Kingdom. Participants: Primarily households including elderly people or children and households that are in housing rented from the borough council. Intervention: 20 050 smoke alarms, fittings, and educational brochures distributed free and installed on request. Main outcome measures: Rates of fires and related injuries during two years after the distribution; alarm ownership, installation, andfunction. Results: Giving out free smoke alarms did not reduce injuries related to fire (rate ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.9), admissions to hospital and deaths (1.3; 0.7 to 2.3), or fires attended by the fire brigade (1.1; 0.96 to 1.3). Similar proportions of intervention and control households had installed alarms (36/119 (30%) v 35/109 (32%); odds ratio 0.9; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.7) and working alarms (19/118 (16%) v 18/108 (17%); 0.9; 0.4 to 1.8). Conclusions: Giving out free smoke alarms in a deprived, multiethnic, urban community did not reduce injuries related to fire, mostly because few alarms had been installed or were maintained. What is already known on this topic In the United Kingdom, residential fires caused 466 deaths and 14 600 non-fatal injuries in 1999 The risk of death from fire is associated with socioeconomic class One study reported an 80% decline in hospitalisations and deaths from residential fires after free smoke alarms were distributed in an area at high risk, but these results may not apply in other settings, and evidence from randomised controlled trials is lacking What this study adds Giving out free smoke alarms in a multiethnic poor urban population did not reduce injuries related to fire or fires Giving smoke alarms away may be a waste of resources and of little benefit unless alarm installation and maintenance is assuredKeywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Urban residential fire and flame injuries: a population based studyInjury Prevention, 2000
- Systematic review: Systematic review of controlled trials of interventions to promote smoke alarmsArchives of Disease in Childhood, 2000
- The “Let's Get Alarmed!” initiative: a smoke alarm giveaway programmeInjury Prevention, 1999
- Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: a systematic review.Health Technology Assessment, 1999
- The design and analysis of paired cluster randomized trials: an application of meta-analysis techniquesStatistics in Medicine, 1997
- Smoke alarm use: prevalence and household predictors.Injury Prevention, 1996
- Risk Factors for Fatal Residential FiresNew England Journal of Medicine, 1992
- Cluster randomization in large public health trials: The importance of antecedent dataStatistics in Medicine, 1992
- Underprivileged areas: validation and distribution of scores.BMJ, 1984
- Identification of underprivileged areas.BMJ, 1983